[P]ublic
engagement
with
the
Supreme
Court
matters,
and
public
engagement
is
dulled
when
decisions
come
late
in
the
day
and
late
in
the
week.
Whether
intentionally
or
not,
the
court
regularly
releases
significant
orders
at
exactly
the
time
when
they’re
most
likely
to
get
lost
in
the
news
cycle.
— Kelsey
Dallas,
the
managing
editor
for
SCOTUSblog,
in
comments
given
in
a
recent
article
examining
the
Supreme
Court’s
tendency
to
release
significant
decisions
in
a
“Friday
news
dump.”
According
to
SCOTUSblog’s
research,
over
the
past
six
months,
more
often
than
not,
the
high
court
announced
its
important
decisions
on
a
Thursday
or
Friday
afternoon,
with
many
of
them
released
after
4
p.m.
ET.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to email her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
Kyrsten
Sinema
(Photo
by
Kevin
Dietsch/Getty
Images)
Kyrsten
Sinema
spent
her
lone
term
as
a
United
States
Senator
as
the
poster
child
for
main
character
syndrome.
From
the
ostentatious
outfits
to
the
carefully
contrived
contrarian
votes,
Sinema
made
sure
she
drew
more
attention
than
a
first-term
senator
customarily
earns.
Down
the
stretch,
it
appeared
as
though
Sinema’s
primary
motivation
was
landing
a
cushy
pharmaceutical
lobbying
job,
so
it
wasn’t
a
surprise
when
she
eschewed
a
continued
political
career
to
join
Hogan
Lovells
in
one
of
those
“not
a
lobbyist
but
doing
all
the
work
a
company
expects
from
a
lobbyist”
roles
popular
among
former
officials.
A
nice
paycheck
to
no
longer
be
the
star
of
the
show.
Alas,
it
seems
that
her
post-Senate
life
remains
just
as
bizarre
as
her
tenure
in
office.
As
noted
by
Law360,
Sinema
is
being
sued
in
North
Carolina
under
one
of
the
most
gloriously
archaic
torts:
alienation
of
affection.
Quite
the
glow-down
from
walking
the
halls
of
power
to
being
sued
under
a
legal
theory
that
makes
the
Rule
Against
Perpetuities
seem
like
a
TikTok
trend.
Alienation
of
affection
allows
a
spouse
to
sue
a
third
party
for
interfering
with
their
marriage.
It’s
a
relic
from
the
era
when
wives
were
considered
property
and
“stealing”
one
carried
legal
consequences.
Only
a
handful
of
states
still
recognize
it
(though
it
might
enjoy
a
comeback
once
this
administration
imposes
some
sort
of
a
trad
wife
mandate),
and
North
Carolina
is
one
of
those
states.
In
fact,
North
Carolina
has
a
fairly
active
alienation
of
affection
docket,
with
roughly
200
cases
per
year.
The
plaintiff
is
Heather
Ammel,
whose
husband
Matthew
Ammel
served
on
Sinema’s
security
detail
and
later
joined
her
Senate
staff
as
a
“Defense
and
National
Security
Fellow.”
According
to
the
complaint,
he
was
also
something
more.
According
to
the
verified
complaint
(via
CourtListener),
everything
allegedly
started
when
Sinema’s
former
head
of
security
warned
Mr.
Ammel,
then
a
member
of
the
detail,
that
she
worried
that
the
senator
was
“having
sexual
relations
with
other
security
members.”
Mr.
Ammel
chose
to
stay.
Then
the
messaging
ramped
up.
Plaintiff
discovered
messages
which
included
a
picture
of
Defendant
wrapped
in
a
towel;
Defendant
offered
to
help
Mr.
Ammel
work
through
his
mental
health
challenges
and
Mr.
Ammel
agreed;
Mr.
Ammel
stated
to
Defendant
he
was
intimidated
by
her
and
Defendant
asked
why
because
she
only
wants
to
be
intimidating
to
her
opponents,
not
to
people
she
likes;
Defendant
suggested
for
Mr.
Ammel
to
bring
MDMA
drugs
on
a
work
trip
so
that
she
could
guide
him
through
a
psychedelic
experience.
The
psychedelic
stuff
would
seem
an
impossible
stretch
except
Sinema
has
already
discussed
knowing
about
Mr.
Ammel
taking
a
psychedelic
substance
for
treatment.
In
March
2025,
Sinema
talked
to
the
Phoenix
New
Times
about
her
advocacy
for
psychedelic
drug
research
and
explicitly
told
the
story
of
Mr.
Ammel
going
to
Mexico
to
take
ibogaine
to
deal
with
migraines.
Ibogaine
in
Mexico
is,
of
course,
not
the
same
as
MDMA
on
a
work
trip,
but
an
allegation
that
seemed
wildly
bizarre
at
first
blush
at
least
has
some
context.
By
June
2024,
Mr.
Ammel
had
stopped
wearing
his
wedding
ring.
The
complaint
alleges
Ammel
told
his
wife
“it
was
best
for
‘public
optics’
so
it
wouldn’t
look
like
Defendant
was
putting
her
hands
on
a
married
man
when
they
were
out
at
concerts
and
various
other
public
events.”
There
are
no
flags
red
enough
for
this.
The
complaint
alleges
that
the
following
months
involved
a
lot
of
travel
and
a
lot
of
Mr.
Ammel
staying
alone
with
the
senator.
The
whole
thing
reads
like
a
reverse
Hallmark
movie
where
the
small
town
man
decides
to
give
it
all
up
for
the
big
city
career
woman.
In
October
2024,
soon
after
Mr.
Ammel
returned
home
to
Moore
County,
North
Carolina,
after
being
away
with
Defendant
on
another
work
trip,
Defendant
messaged
Mr.
Ammel
stating,
“I
miss
you.
Putting
my
hand
on
your
heart.
I’ll
see
you
soon.”
Plaintiff
responded
to
the
message
stating,
“are
you
having
an
affair
with
my
husband?
You
took
a
married
man
away
from
his
family.”
Golly.
Hard
to
imagine
that
a
woman
who
posted
pictures
of
herself
wearing
a
“Fuck
Off”
ring
while
her
colleagues
urged
her
to
help
struggling
workers
could
be
callous
to
someone
else’s
pain.
The
Ammels
separated
in
2024.
The
complaint
says
Mr.
Ammel
removed
the
last
of
his
belongings
from
the
house
in
September
2025.
While
the
complaint
alleges
that
Mr.
Ammel
and
Sinema
had
an
affair
—
indeed,
the
complaint
alleges
that
it’s
still
ongoing
—
that’s
not
even
necessary
to
establish
a
basic
claim
of
alienation.
It
just
requires
a
third
party
knowingly
engaged
in
conduct
leading
to
the
loss
of
marital
affection.
The
soon-to-be
former
Mrs.
Ammel
also
brings
a
claim
for
punitive
damages
alleging
that
Sinema’s
actions
were
“willful,
wanton,
intentional,
malicious,
and
in
reckless
disregard
of
Plaintiff’s
marital
rights.”
Alienation
of
affection
is,
to
be
clear,
a
very
stupid
tort.
It’s
an
awful
carryover
from
an
era
when
married
women
were
treated
as
chattel.
That
said,
there’s
oodles
of
topsy-turvey
here.
It’s
a
claim
brought
by
the
wife
and
the
alleged
other
woman
is
the
more
powerful
one
in
the
supposed
extramarital
relationship.
It’s
the
sort
of
fact-pattern
that
19th
century
state
legislators
would
have
shuddered
to
think
this
claim
might
cover.
Maybe
a
certain
Biglaw
firm
will
lobby
the
North
Carolina
legislature
for
some
very,
very
specific
tort
reform.
Lawyers
love
to
say
they
“need
to
work
on
their
writing.”
Translation:
they’ve
read
something
they
wrote,
felt
that
little
stomach
drop,
and
thought,
This
doesn’t
sound
like
me.
This
doesn’t
even
sound
clear.
Here’s
the
good
news:
writing
isn’t
a
talent.
It’s
a
skill.
And
skills
respond
to
the
same
cure
as
every
other
skill:
reps.
Not
glamorous
reps.
Not
the
kind
that
gets
applause.
The
kind
you
do
in
small
rooms,
when
no
one
is
watching,
when
you’re
a
little
uncomfortable,
when
you
want
to
quit
halfway
through
because
the
sentence
you
just
wrote
feels
like
wet
cardboard.
That’s
the
work.
To
develop
your
writing
system,
identify
specific
habits
like
outlining
themes,
drafting
quickly,
and
rewriting,
because
concrete
practices
make
improvement
tangible
and
achievable.
1.
Stop
writing
to
impress.
Start
writing
to
be
understood.
Most
legal
writing
problems
aren’t
“writing”
problems.
They’re
intention
problems.
When
lawyers
sit
down
to
write,
too
many
of
them
are
trying
to:
sound
smart;
sound
formal;
sound
“lawyerly”;
avoid
being
wrong;
and
cover
every
base.
That’s
how
we
end
up
with
prose
that’s
technically
correct
but
emotionally
dead.
It
reads
like
it
was
drafted
by
a
committee
that
hates
the
reader.
If
you
take
nothing
else
from
this
column,
take
this:
Your
job
is
not
to
sound
like
a
lawyer.
Your
job
is
to
help
a
reader
decide.
That
reader
might
be
a
judge
who
has
70
motions
on
the
docket.
Or
an
adjuster
who
is
scanning
your
demand
at
11:30
p.m.,
or
a
general
counsel
who
is
trying
to
explain
your
advice
to
a
CEO
who
doesn’t
speak
legal.
Write
to
be
understood.
Everything
else
is
ego.
2.
Clarity
is
kindness.
One
of
the
most
underrated
forms
of
professionalism
is
making
it
easy
for
people
to
follow
your
thinking.
Clear
writing
says,
“I
respect
your
time.”
The
unclear
writing
says:
“I’m
going
to
make
you
work
for
it.”
Clarity
isn’t
dumbing
things
down.
It’s
doing
the
hard
work
up
front,
so
the
reader
doesn’t
have
to.
Want
clarity?
Start
with
structure.
Before
you
write
a
single
paragraph,
answer:
What
is
the
point?
What
does
the
reader
need
to
know
first?
What
do
they
need
to
believe
to
agree
with
me?
Most
legal
writing
improves
dramatically
when
the
writer
outlines
like
a
trial
lawyer:
theme,
roadmap,
proof.
If
you
can’t
say
your
point
in
one
sentence,
you’re
not
ready
to
write
the
brief.
You’re
prepared
to
think.
3.
Overthinking
is
not
preparation.
Many
lawyers
confuse
rumination
with
readiness.
They’ll
“research”
for
hours,
keep
24
cases
open
on
their
screen,
and
then
write
three
bloated
pages
that
never
land.
At
some
point,
you
have
to
stop
circling
the
runway
and
take
off.
Permit
yourself
to
write
an
ugly
first
draft,
fostering
confidence
and
reducing
fear
of
imperfection
in
your
writing
process.
Not
a
“rough”
draft.
An
ugly
one.
Put
the
point
on
paper.
Get
the
facts
down.
State
the
rule.
Make
the
argument.
Don’t
polish
while
you’re
drafting.
Polishing
too
early
kills
momentum.
Drafting
is
for
getting
it
out.
Editing
is
for
making
it
good.
Different
muscles.
Different
phases.
Don’t
blend
them.
4.
The
first
draft
is
where
you
tell
yourself
the
story.
The
rewrite
is
where
you
say
to
the
reader.
If
you’re
not
rewriting,
you’re
not
writing
—
you’re
typing.
And
if
you’re
a
young
lawyer,
rewriting
is
where
you
separate
yourself
from
the
pack.
The
best
writers
are
not
the
ones
who
“get
it
right
the
first
time.”
They’re
the
ones
who
are
willing
to
cut,
tighten,
and
clarify
without
getting
emotionally
attached
to
their
original
phrasing.
A
mindset
shift
that
helps:
feedback
is
data,
not
a
verdict.
If
a
partner
marks
up
your
draft
as
if
it
owes
them
money,
that’s
not
a
sign
you’re
terrible.
It’s
a
sign
you’re
in
the
arena,
learning
in
public.
The
only
people
who
don’t
get
edited
are
the
ones
who
don’t
write.
So
don’t
sulk.
Study
the
edits.
Look
for
patterns.
Are
you:
burying
the
lead?
hedging?
over-qualifying?
explaining
what’s
obvious?
Avoiding
the
key
sentence
because
it
feels
too
direct?
That’s
the
real
lesson.
5.
Earn
the
reader’s
attention
early
by
starting
with
a
clear
point
or
hook
that
makes
them
feel
acknowledged
and
respected
for
their
time.
Legal
writing
has
a
bad
habit:
it
starts
slow.
“COMES
NOW
the
Defendant…”
No.
Stop.
Your
reader
is
not
warmed
up.
They
are
not
impressed.
They
are
not
settling
in
with
a
cup
of
tea,
delighted
to
hear
your
thoughts.
They
are
busy.
Start
with
the
hook.
The
point.
The
why-now.
Try
openers
like:
“This
motion
is
about
one
issue:
__.”
“The
question
is
simple:
__.”
“Plaintiff’s
theory
fails
for
a
basic
reason:
__.”
You
can
be
professional
without
being
ceremonial.
If
you
want
to
write
persuasively,
you
have
to
take
responsibility
for
the
reader’s
attention
span.
Please
don’t
make
them
hunt
for
the
point,
as
if
it
were
hidden
in
a
scavenger
hunt.
6.
Shorter
is
harder.
Do
the
harder
thing.
Most
lawyers
over-write
because
it’s
safer.
More
words
feel
like
more
protection.
More
caveats
feel
like
fewer
risks.
But
in
persuasion,
extra
words
are
usually
extra
exits
for
the
reader.
Here’s
an
exercise
that
will
change
your
writing
fast:
After
you
finish
a
draft,
try
to
cut
15%
without
losing
meaning.
Then
cut
another
10%.
You’ll
be
shocked
at
how
much
it
improves
when
you
eliminate:
throat-clearing
redundant
phrases
needless
adverbs
passive
voice
“It
is
well
established
that…”
Don’t
just
“edit.”
Cut
with
purpose.
Write
like
every
sentence
costs
money.
7.
Learn
to
love
plain
words.
“Utilize”
is
not
better
than
“use.”
“If”
is
not
better
than
“if.”
“Before”
is
not
better
than
“before.”
Fancy
words
don’t
elevate
legal
writing.
They
weaken
it.
Fancy
language
creates
distance.
Plain
language
creates
trust.
And
when
you’re
writing
for
a
client
—
especially
a
scared,
stressed,
non-lawyer
client
—
plain
language
is
empathy
in
action.
Your
reader
shouldn’t
need
a
decoder
ring
to
understand
what
you’re
saying.
8.
Read
it
out
loud.
Yes,
really.
This
is
the
most
straightforward
hack
I
know,
and
it’s
the
one
most
lawyers
refuse
to
do
because
it
feels
weird.
Read
the
draft
out
loud.
If
you
stumble
over
a
sentence,
your
reader
will
stumble
too.
If
you
run
out
of
breath,
the
sentence
is
too
long.
If
it
sounds
like
something
no
human
would
ever
say,
you’ve
drifted
into
Legalese
Land.
Writing
is
spoken
language
cleaned
up.
If
it
doesn’t
sound
like
a
person,
it
won’t
read
like
a
person.
9.
Improve
your
writing
the
way
you
improve
anything
else:
reps
+
review.
If
you
want
to
become
a
better
writer,
don’t
make
it
mystical.
Make
it
mechanical.
Here’s
a
simple
system
you
can
run
without
changing
your
life:
Three
reps
a
week:
Rewrite
something
you
already
wrote
(an
email,
a
case
note,
a
short
motion
section).
Tighten
it.
Clarify
it.
Shorten
it.
Write
200–300
words
on
one
idea
you
understand
well.
No
citations.
Just
an
explanation.
Pretend
you’re
teaching
a
wise
friend.
Copyedit
one
great
page
of
writing
you
admire.
Not
to
plagiarize
—
to
study
rhythm
and
structure.
Ask:
How
does
the
writer
move
the
reader?
And
here’s
the
part
most
people
skip:
Review. Look
at
what
you
did.
What
worked?
What
didn’t?
What
would
you
change
next
time?
That’s
how
you
get
better.
Not
by
hoping.
By
tracking.
Significant
improvement
comes
from
boring
daily
math.
10.
Develop
a
voice
by
telling
the
truth
—
professionally.
A
lot
of
lawyers
want
“voice,”
but
they’re
afraid
of
being
human
on
the
page.
Voice
doesn’t
mean
being
dramatic.
It
means
being
real.
It
means
writing
with:
candor;
specificity;
conviction;
and
a
little
bit
of
you.
If
you’re
writing
an
email
to
opposing
counsel,
your
“voice”
might
be
calm,
direct,
and
firm.
If
you’re
writing
to
a
client,
it
might
be
clear,
steady,
and
reassuring.
If
you’re
writing
a
brief,
it
might
be
confident,
organized,
and
restrained.
Voice
is
not
personality
for
its
own
sake.
It’s
the
tone
that
earns
trust
in
the
context
you’re
in.
And
if
you
want
to
build
that
voice
faster,
write
publicly
sometimes.
A
short
LinkedIn
post.
A
bar
newsletter.
A
practice-group
note.
Not
to
“build
a
brand,”
but
to
get
reps
at
explaining
ideas
clearly.
You
don’t
get
better
by
waiting
for
confidence.
You
get
better
by
writing
anyway.
A
closing
thought
If
you’re
a
young
lawyer
and
you
feel
behind,
you’re
not.
Most
lawyers
never
intentionally
improve
their
writing.
They
keep
producing
pages
and
hoping
the
pages
get
better
by
osmosis.
They
don’t.
But
if
you
decide
—
today
—
that
you’ll
do
reps
and
rewrites,
you’ll
separate
yourself
quickly.
Within
a
year,
people
will
start
saying,
“Have
them
draft
it.”
And
that’s
when
doors
open.
Writing
is
leverage
in
this
profession.
It’s
how
you
persuade.
It’s
how
you
lead.
It’s
how
you
earn
trust
when
you’re
not
in
the
room.
So
don’t
wait
for
a
perfect
schedule
or
perfect
inspiration.
Write.
Rewrite.
Cut.
Clarify.
And
keep
going
—
especially
when
it’s
ugly.
That’s
the
part
that
counts.
Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.
If
you
practiced
law
10
years
ago,
the
idea
of
having
a
“knowledge-based
chatbot”
to
answer
client
questions
at
midnight
wasn’t
just
a
fantasy
—
it
was
a
$50,000
development
project
that
no
solo
practitioner
could
afford.
Today,
it
is
becoming
a
reality
thanks
to
Marla
Miller,
a
former
small
law
firm
owner
and
founder
of
9To5
Legal
Docs.
Miller,
a
former
international
tax
attorney
who
cut
her
teeth
in
big
corporate
multinationals,
never
intended
to
become
a
tech
founder.
After
a
move
back
to
her
hometown
of
Lake
Charles,
Louisiana,
she
opened
a
solo
practice,
dealing
with
the
same
“bottleneck”
that
plagues
almost
every
small
firm
lawyer:
the
realization
that
there
are
only
so
many
hours
in
the
day
to
sell.
“I
liked
what
I
did,
but
I
didn’t
like
how
I
had
to
do
it,”
Miller
explains.
“You
can’t
really
do
complex
tax
work
for
small-to-medium-sized
businesses
using
the
big
corporate
model.
I
found
myself
repeating
myself
a
lot,
dealing
with
the
consultation
grind,
and
realizing
that
on
your
own,
you
are
the
bottleneck.”
For
Miller,
the
catalyst
for
change
came
during
a
trip
to
South
by
Southwest
(SXSW).
Miller
watched
a
trademark
attorney
who
was
automating
processes
and
selling
forms
online,
and
the
light
bulb
went
on.
“I
thought,
there’s
got
to
be
a
better
way
to
do
this.
People
needed
information,
and
they
didn’t
need
to
pay
$500-plus
an
hour
to
get
it.”
The
Pivot:
From
Practice
to
Platform
Miller’s
solution
is
a
new
platform,
9To5Docs.com
—
currently
in
soft
launch
—
designed
to
bridge
the
gap
between
early-stage
startups
and
the
attorneys
who
serve
them.
The
premise
is
built
on
a
simple
observation:
early-stage
startups,
despite
their
unique
value
propositions,
usually
follow
a
predictable
legal
path.
They
need
LLCs
or
Delaware
C-Corps;
they
need
SAFE
notes
for
funding;
they
need
standard
employment
agreements.
Because
the
structure
is
repetitive,
it
is
ripe
for
automation.
But
unlike
the
new
wave
of
“AI
Native
Law
Firms”
making
headlines,
Miller
isn’t
trying
to
replace
the
attorney.
She’s
trying
to
clone
the
attorney’s
efficiency.
The
9to5
platform
offers
a
“data
room”
backend
that
handles
corporate
records,
e-signatures,
and
storage
—
essentially
combining
the
utility
of
Dropbox
and
DocuSign
into
a
single
legal
workflow.
But
the
real
game-changer
will
drop
in
2026
with
“Hey
Jane,”
an
AI
agent
trained
on
business
tax
and
startup
law.
“Think
of
it
as
the
answer
to
those
burning
entrepreneur
questions
on
a
Thursday
at
midnight,”
Miller
says.
The
goal
is
to
allow
other
solo
attorneys
to
white-label
these
tools.
Instead
of
a
lawyer
spending
20
minutes
answering
a
basic
question
about
an
EIN
number,
their
white-labeled
AI
agent
handles
the
education.
When
the
client
needs
high-level
strategy,
the
human
lawyer
steps
in.
It’s
a
hybrid
model
that
promises
to
make
solos
“AI-enabled”
rather
than
obsolete.
The
“Cliff”
of
Entrepreneurship
Transitioning
from
a
specialized
tax
practice
to
a
tech
startup
required
more
than
just
coding;
it
required
a
fundamental
rewiring
of
the
lawyer
brain.
“As
an
attorney,
it’s
almost
safe,”
Miller
admits.
“You
know
the
rules.
You
navigate
them.
There
are
parameters.
But
building
a
startup?
It
feels
like
you’re
on
the
edge
of
a
cliff,
you
don’t
know
what’s
over
there,
and
you
just
have
to
jump.”
The
shift
also
meant
abandoning
the
security
blanket
of
the
billable
hour.
In
a
law
firm,
sitting
at
a
computer
and
billing
means
you
are
working.
In
a
startup,
productivity
might
look
like
taking
a
walk
to
problem-solve
or
staring
at
a
whiteboard
to
set
strategic
direction
—
activities
that
generate
zero
immediate
revenue
but
are
vital
for
long-term
survival.
Why
Women
Are
Leading
the
AI
Charge
Miller
is
part
of
a
growing
cohort
of
women
founders
in
the
legal
AI
space
—
a
demographic
shift
from
the
cloud-computing
boom
of
the
previous
decade,
which
was
largely
male-dominated.
When
asked
why
women
are
gravitating
toward
AI
legal
tech,
Miller
has
a
theory:
“Women
are
very
efficient
humans.
We
have
to
be.
We
are
organized,
and
AI
is
the
ultimate
tool
for
efficiency
if
used
right.”
As
Miller
prepares
to
roll
out
consultation
automation
and
attorney-facing
tools
in
Q1
of
2026,
she
remains
a
test
subject
for
her
own
software,
running
her
practice
through
the
platform
to
iron
out
the
kinks.
It’s
a
risky,
non-typical
path,
but
for
a
lawyer
who
grew
tired
of
the
“consultation
grind,”
the
view
from
the
edge
of
the
cliff
looks
promising.
Marla
Miller’s
platform
is
currently
in
soft
launch.
She
will
be
attending
the
Women
in
AI
event
at
Vanderbilt
Law
School
in
February.
Carolyn
Elefant
is
one
of
the
country’s
most
recognized
advocates
for
solo
and
small
firm
lawyers.
She
founded
MyShingle.com
in
2002,
the
longest-running
blog
for
solo
practitioners,
where
she
has
published
thousands
of
articles,
resources,
and
guides
on
starting,
running,
and
growing
independent
law
practices.
She
is
the
author
of
Solo
by
Choice,
widely
regarded
as
the
definitive
handbook
for
launching
and
sustaining
a
law
practice,
and
has
spoken
at
countless
bar
events
and
legal
conferences
on
technology,
innovation,
and
regulatory
reform
that
impacts
solos
and
smalls.
Elefant
also
develops
practical
tools
like
the AI
Teach-In to
help
small
firms
adopt
AI
and
she
consistently
champions
reforms
to
level
the
playing
field
for
independent
lawyers.
Alongside
this
work,
she
runs
the
Law
Offices
of
Carolyn
Elefant,
a
national
energy
and
regulatory
practice
that
handles
selective
complex,
high-stakes
matters.
Rachel
Cohen,
the
former
Skadden
associate
who spoke
out
about
Trump’s
threat
to
the
rule
of
law
—
putting
together
an
open
letter
signed
by
hundreds
of
associates
and
then
leaving
her
firm
when
it
joined
the
spineless
capitulators
pledging
free
services
to
Trump
causes
—
has
watched
her
worst
fears
come
true
over
the
past
year.
Above
the
Law’s
2025
Lawyer
of
the
Year,
who
now
works
as
the
Strategic
and
External
Affairs
Coordinator
at
Abbe
Lowell’s
Lowell
&
Associates,
continues
to
push
back
against
creeping
authoritarianism,
traveling
to
Minnesota
as
it
deals
with
the
surge
of
ICE
violence
that
has
already
taken
the
life
of
Renee
Good
and
led
to
the
brutalization
of
many
others.
Did
you
see
the
story
where
they
kidnapped
and
beat
up
a
10th
grader
and
then
SOLD
HIS
CELLPHONE.
That
kid
was
an
American
citizen
too,
which
shouldn’t
matter
except
to
highlight
that
Homeland
Security
is
not
only
cruel,
but
shockingly
stupid
and
yet
consciously
indifferent
to
their
own
incompetence.
Anyway,
while
on
her
sojourn
up
north,
Cohen
had
a
fortuitous
gas
station
run-in
with
Greg
Bovino,
the
tactical
commander
behind
Homeland
Security’s
occupation
efforts
sometimes
referred
to
as
“Munchkin
Himmler”
for
marrying
his
short
stature
with
long,
Nazi-inspired
outfits.
Cohen
posted
her
meeting
on
Instagram
and
confirmed
that
Bovino
is,
in
fact,
small.
Nothing
like
a
language
scolding
from
a
guy
chaining
up
children.
It
will
never
cease
to
boggle
the
mind
that
someone
can
tut-tut
cursing
while
going
on
TV
to
say
“hats
off”
to
an
agent
gunning
down
an
innocent
woman
in
broad
daylight.
That
Tuesday
video
went
viral
throughout
the
day
yesterday,
prompting
a
follow-up
where
Cohen
carefully
lays
out
the
stakes
for
her
audience,
describing
the
meaning
of
bravery,
the
role
people
in
her
position
should
play
in
confronting
authoritarianism.
She
also
reminds
Americans
that
Renee
Good
was
not
the
first
person
killed
by
ICE’s
lawless
assault
on
cities
and
explains
why
more
people
need
to
know
the
name
Silverio
González.
When
state
legislatures
across
the
U.S.
convened
in
early
January,
they
kicked
off
a
process
that
will
likely
produce
200,000
new
bills
and
other
government
measures
this
year,
with
the
vast
majority
introduced
in
the
first
few
weeks.
And
when
some
of
these
bills
ultimately
become
law,
it
may
already
be
too
late
for
government
affairs,
compliance,
and
legal
professionals
to
take
the
necessary
steps
—
or
for
in-house
and
outside
counsel
to
properly
advise
their
client
organizations.
Staying
ahead
of
the
curve
requires
keeping
up
with
and
sifting
through
a
massive
volume
of
data,
and
LexisNexis
State
Net
is
uniquely
equipped
to
meet
these
challenges.
This
platform
integrates
with
Lexis+
AI
and
other
LexisNexis
solutions
to
provide
a
user-friendly
interface,
apprising
you
of
all
of
the
legislative
activities
and
status
actions
in
the
precise
areas
you
need
to
monitor.
State
Net
also
boasts
a
new
generative
AI
feature
that
will
seamlessly
guide
you
through
the
potential
effects
of
a
measure.
Additionally,
the
platform
draws
on
LexisNexis’
unparalleled
historical
data
to
predict
the
likelihood
of
a
bill
becoming
law
as
well
as
how
long
this
could
take,
furthering
your
ability
to
confidently
make
data-driven
decisions.
A
new
Regulatory
Analytics
feature
does
the
same
for
regulatory
measures,
drawing
on
decades
of
regulatory
activity
and
advanced
machine
learning.
You
can
schedule
a
demo
here.
Or
feel
free
to
read
on
for
an
overview
of
State
Net,
provided
by
David
Giusti,
a
Lexis
representative.
Finding
Legislation
Many
users
begin
their
State
Net
research
by
bringing
up
a
particular
piece
of
legislation.
State
Net
allows
you
to
search
by
general
terms
as
well
as
a
bill’s
proper
name
and
number,
and
the
platform
provides
extensive
tags
and
filters
that
will
easily
guide
you
to
the
proper
result.
Once
you’ve
found
a
specific
bill,
State
Net
will
show
you
the
most
recent
version
of
the
text,
along
with
metadata
flagging
how
and
when
it
had
been
changed.
A
new
feature
leverages
generative
AI
to
provide
a
summary
of
the
document
as
you
view
it,
displaying
key
changes,
key
requirements,
affected
individuals
and
organizations,
and
other
data.
State
Net
also
contains
a
tool
that
will
show
you
a
side-by-side
comparison
of
any
different
versions
of
the
bill
you
select.
Meanwhile,
an
overview
feature
will
allow
you
to
follow
the
measure’s
progress.
It
will
display
all
recent
updates
and
upcoming
events
like
committee
hearings
or
scheduled
votes.
Drawing
on
extensive
historical
data,
State
Net
will
also
generate
a
forecast
of
whether
the
measure
is
likely
to
become
law.
Additionally,
it
provides
a
“Momentum
Meter”
that
indicates
whether
a
bill
is
moving
slower
or
faster
than
usual,
along
with
numerous
other
data
points.
State
Net
has
also
introduced
a
Regulatory
Analytics
feature,
which
provides
similar
analysis
to
state
agency
rulemaking.
Finally,
a
tracking
center
appears
with
each
measure
you
select,
allowing
you
to
assign
numerous
types
of
tags.
This
allows
you
to
link
it
to
a
specific
client,
track
bills
based
on
their
likelihood
of
becoming
law,
or
add
your
own
custom
notes,
for
just
a
few
examples.
Casting
a
Wide
(Yet
Highly
Targeted)
Net
Of
course,
researchers
often
don’t
know
the
specific
legislation
they
are
looking
for
and
instead
want
to
stay
on
top
of
a
topic
or
practice
area.
State
Net
has
extensive
capabilities
to
find
everything
you
need
regarding
your
chosen
subject
matter
—
while
weeding
out
everything
you
don’t.
To
begin
a
search
by
topic,
you
can
use
State
Net’s
taxonomy
of
industries
and
practice
areas
and
also
filter
by
factors
like
jurisdiction
and
state.
State
Net
customers
also
have
access
to
LexisNexis’
issue
screening
service,
where
human
research
analysts
will
leverage
technology
to
further
narrow
a
query
to
relevant
results.
The
service
is
particularly
useful
in
the
early
weeks
of
a
new
year,
when
measures
are
introduced
at
a
fast
pace.
Giusti,
the
LexisNexis
representative,
provided
an
example
of
researching
bills
related
to
information
privacy.
A
Boolean
search
will
bring
up
about
20,000
measures.
The
issue
screening
service
reduced
the
number
of
results
to
just
under
8,000,
validated
by
meticulous
human
review.
Tracking
Your
Topic
Once
you’ve
determined
the
measures
you’ll
be
following,
State
Net’s
extensive
tracking
capabilities
set
the
system
apart.
To
get
started,
you
can
view
everything
you
need
to
monitor
in
State
Net’s
tracking
console.
For
example,
you
can
customize
an
email
alert
based
on
your
profile,
which
will
automatically
let
you
know
whenever
there’s
any
activity
in
any
of
the
measures
you’re
tracking.
The
customization
features
are
especially
useful
for
large
law
departments
or
law
firms,
where
the
organization
will
cast
a
much
broader
net
than
individual
practice
areas.
With
the
tagging
feature,
you
can
ensure
that
each
individual
receives
alerts
and
tracks
measures
relevant
to
the
topics
they
need
to
follow,
while
the
broader
organization
has
a
far
wider
scope.
Once
a
bill
is
enacted,
State
Net
includes
code
impact
tables,
which
reference
all
of
the
existing
laws
and
regulations
that
will
be
changed.
The
code
tables
link
directly
to
Lexis+,
where
you
can
view
the
full
text
of
the
measure.
The
Lexis+
Code
Compare
tool
can
be
accessed
as
well,
allowing
you
to
see
the
changes
within
their
full
context.
Additionally,
within
Lexis+
AI
you
can
see
a
generative
AI-based
overview
of
how
a
bill
would
change
a
current
law.
(A
side-by-side
comparison
view
is
also
available.)
See
for
Yourself
LexisNexis
State
Net
allows
lawyers,
government
affairs
professionals,
compliance
analysts,
and
others
to
make
data-driven
determinations
about
where
best
to
invest
resources
related
to
legislation
and
regulation.
It
allows
you
to
cut
through
vast
amounts
of
code
and
proposals
to
focus
only
on
what’s
relevant
to
your
work,
and
it
provides
forecasts
backed
by
LexisNexis’
unparalleled
database
to
guide
your
planning.
And
now,
it
brings
generative
AI
into
the
mix
to
provide
ever-expanding
benefits.
Biglaw
firms
with
single
partnership
tiers
are
now
few
and
far
between,
with
more
big-name
firms
showing
that
they’re
ready,
willing,
and
able
to
welcome
nonequity
partners
to
their
ranks.
Now,
we’re
seeing
reports
that
Sullivan
&
Cromwell,
the
#25
firm
in
the
country
by
gross
revenue,
has
not
only
decided
to
develop
its
own
nonequity
partner
tier,
but
at
the
same
time,
the
firm
has
rolled
out
a
new
bonus
program,
all
in
the
hope
of
improving
retention
and
offering
more
partnership
opportunities
for
attorneys.
The American
Lawyer has
the
scoop:
The
firm
has
a
new
“income
partner”
position,
also
known
as
a
nonequity
partner
tier.
Lawyers
in
these
positions
will
“work
alongside
our
equity
partners,
who
will
continue
to
own
and
govern
the
firm”
and
“create
a
new
pathway
to
partnership
for
more
of
our
lawyers,”
according
to
the
memo.
Sources
familiar
with
the
matter
said
S&C
doesn’t
have
a
specific
target
number
for
how
many
nonequity
partners
it
will
make,
but
the
firm
will
have
a
“strict
standard”
for
the
process.
The
sources
said
the
expectation
is
that
those
who
become
income
partners
will
be
groomed
for
equity
partnership
and
the
firm
will
continue
to
promote
some
associates
directly
into
the
equity
partnership.
As
far
as
S&C’s
new
“discretionary
enhanced
associate
bonus”
program
is
concerned,
only
third-year
associates
and
above
who
are
in
the
top
10%
of
their
practice
group
by
hours
will
be
eligible
to
receive
them
these
extra
funds,
in
addition
to
the
firm’s
regular
bonus
program.
The
new
bonus
is
performance-based,
including
hourly
billing
(as
well
as
pro
bono
work),
plus
attorneys’
other
“contributions”
to
the
firm.
The
firm’s
memo
notes
that
these
bonuses
will
reward
“those
who
consistently
surpass
[traditional
expectations].”
Last,
but
certainly
not
least,
SullCrom
is
now
pledging
to
pay
associates
$50,000
bonuses
through
its
new
“lawyer
referral
bonus
program”
for
those
who
“successfully
refer
an
associate
or
counsel.”
Half
of
the
money
will
be
paid
when
the
referred
lawyer
starts,
with
the
rest
set
to
hit
accounts
after
the
referral
completes
one
year
at
the
firm.
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
is
certainly
doing
a
lot
in
its
efforts
to
improve
attorney
retention,
recruitment,
and
satisfaction
—
but
will
it
work?
Stay
tuned.
In
the
meantime,
best
of
luck
to
the
firm
as
it
moves
ahead
with
its
income
partnership
program,
and
congratulations
to
the
select
associates
at
the
firm
who
will
be
receiving
enhanced
discretionary
bonuses.
Is
your
firm
planning
to
increase
its
nonequity
partnership
ranks?
Please
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us and
let
us
know.
Thanks.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to email her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
“Not
all
crazy
ideas
are
great,
but
all
great
ideas
are
crazy.”
–
Mike
Posner
Since
it’s
clear
that
lots
of
lawyers
still
don’t
either
understand
or
heed
the
risks
of
GenAI,
perhaps
it’s
time
for
a
crazy
idea:
mandatory
CLE
on
just
this
subject.
Ask
a
room
full
of
lawyers
when
giving
a
GenAI
presentation
who
is
using
GenAI
and
you
still
get
blank
looks
and
few
hands.
Yet
the
GenAI
train
has
clearly
left
the
station.
And
every
day
we
hear
of
lawyers
being
sanctioned
for
citing
cases
that
don’t
exist
or
which
are
inaccurate
even
recently
in
the
appeal
of
disciplinary
order.
So
those
that
are
using
it
are
either
ignorant
of
what
GenAI
is
or
just
choose
to
ignore
the
risks.
Clearly
what
we
have
here
is
failure
to
communicate,
to
borrow
a
line
from
an
old
movie.
A
Solution
Situations
like
this
always
inspire
asking
a
“what
if”
question:
what
if
state
bar
associations
and
courts
promulgated
a
mandatory
GenAI
CLE
requirement
for
all
lawyers?
I
know
what
you’re
saying.
You’re
rolling
your
eyes
and
saying
just
what
we
need,
another
boring
CLE
requirement.
Another
room
full
of
lawyers
or
a
bunch
of
squares
on
a
computer
screen
with
bored
lawyers
checking
their
emails
and
waiting
for
it
to
be
over.
But
before
you
conclude
this
is
the
dumbest
idea
you’ve
ever
heard,
let’s
look
at
some
facts.
Technological
Competence
Is
Critical
to
Lawyer
Competency
A
recent
Reuters’
Practical
Lawyer
article
talked
about
the
state
of
technological
ethical
compliance.
The
article,
written
by
two
Redgrave
partners,
Erica
Zolner
and
Benjamin
Redgrave,
is
a
good
summary
of
the
present
requirements,
relevant
ethical
rules,
and
opinions
relating
to
a
lawyer’s
obligation.
The
article
notes
that
over
39
states
have
adopted
Comment
8
to
the
ABA
Competency
Rule
which
states
lawyers
should
stay
abreast
of
the
benefits
and
risks
of
relevant
technology.
And
it
also
highlights
that
several
states
and
the
ABA
have
weighed
in
particularly
on
a
lawyer’s
ethical
duties
when
it
comes
to
the
use
of
GenAI.
The
authors
also
note
that
three
states
—
New
York,
Florida,
and
North
Carolina
—
have
a
mandatory
one-hour
tech
training
requirements.
Lawyers
like
precedent:
there
now
is
some
for
more
specific
tech-related
training.
According
to
Zolner
and
Redgrave:
[M]any
attorneys
have
struggled
with
this
long-established
ethical
principle
in
the
face
of
rapid
technological
change
impacting
litigation
practice.
Some
attorneys
are
ignorant
of
evolving
technologies
or
fear
them
as
unduly
complex,
while
others
rely
too
much
on
technologies
and
fail
to
understand
their
limitations…
Technological
issues
are
no
longer
relegated
to
substantial
cases
or
large
corporate
matters.
Instead,
they
pervade
all
litigation,
regardless
of
size
or
complexity,
particularly
in
a
post-COVID-19
world.
Okay,
but
you
say,
GenAI
is
just
another
technology
lawyers
need
to
keep
abreast.
No
need
to
make
everyone
sit
through
a
seminar
or
webinar
just
on
it.
Right?
Wrong.
GenAI
is
too
ubiquitous
and
potentially
too
disruptive
to
be
lumped
in
with
tech
in
general.
That’s
the
reality.
The
GenAI
Reality
Want
some
more
facts?
Here’s
a
few:
Every
day,
lawyers
are
being
fined
and
embarrassed
for
citing
fictitious
cases
or
citing
cases
inaccurately
because
they
rely
on
GenAI.
Nevertheless,
the
use
of
GenAI
tools,
particularly
publicly
facing
ones,
are
ubiquitously
used
by
lawyers
and
laypeople.
We
have
to
assume
that
will
only
increase.
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
may
be
using
GenAI
tools
in
ways
that
jeopardize
client
confidentiality
and
in
ways
that
could
waive
privileges.
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
are
being
inundated
by
vendor
claims
and
other
information,
much
of
which
is
hyperbole.
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
are
under
increasing
pressure
from
clients
to
use
GenAI
tools.
Clients
themselves
are
using
these
tools
in
good
ways
but
often
in
bad
ways,
making
inappropriate
decisions
and
creating
a
discovery
trails.
GenAI
may
change
the
way
lawyers
bill,
work,
and
their
culture
in
ways
that
can’t
be
predicted
but
for
which
preparation
is
needed.
There
are
indeed
ways
to
use
GenAI
tools
for
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
and
clients
benefit
if
used
correctly.
All
of
which
suggests
and
even
compels
the
need
for
increased
training
and
education
on
GenAI.
The
Practical
Benefits
There
are
a
bunch
of
advantages
to
making
GenAI
training
mandatory.
A
mandatory
CLE
course
could
cover
such
things
as
how
LLMs
and
GenAI
works,
what
it
is
and
can
do,
and
what
it
can’t.
It
would
help
lawyers
understand
and
avoid
the
resulting
risks
of
hallucination
and
inaccuracies.
It
could
make
them
understand
why
verification
is
critical
and
reduce
the
number
of
incidents
that
are
eroding
trust
in
the
process.
It
would
help
avoid
waiver
issues
and
the
inadvertent
breach
of
privacy.
It
would
help
lawyers
advise
clients
as
to
the
risks
and
benefits
of
these
tools
and
what
not
to
do.
It
would
help
legal
professionals
sort
through
the
tools
and
vendor
claims
and
decide
what
tools
best
fit
their
needs.
It
would
assist
in
incorporating
GenAI
tools
into
the
practice
and
achieving
the
benefits
of
the
tools
for
lawyers
and
their
clients.
It
would
aid
them
in
planning
for
the
potential
disruption
these
tools
can
bring.
It
would
show
them
how
to
better
supervise
those
who
will
undoubtedly
be
using
these
tools
in
their
firms
and
develop
appropriate
use
guidelines.
Such
a
course
would
set
a
baseline
level
of
competence
that
all
lawyers
in
today’s
world
simply
have
to
have.
It
would
send
a
message
to
everyone
on
how
important
and
pervasive
these
tools
are.
A
basic
course
would
cover
at
a
minimum
what
LLMs
are,
why
they
pose
risks
(and
how
to
avoid
them),
and
how
to
supervise
others
who
will
use
them.
It
would
also
demonstrate
the
benefits.
And
it
could
be
standardized
and
delivered
at
scale.
It’s
not
complicated.
An
Idea
Whose
Time
Has
Come
GenAI
tools
are
too
important
and
impactful
on
the
profession
to
leave
it
to
individual
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
decide
whether
to
learn
about
the
tools.
From
courts
to
clients
to
those
whom
lawyers
owe
various
duties,
all
will
be
impacted.
Yes,
there
are
objections
and
concerns.
Bar
associations
may
struggle
to
develop
quality
curriculum,
and
vendors
will
immediately
lobby
to
get
their
products
“CLE-approved.”
Lawyers
could
simply
tune
out
and
not
listen;
after
all,
most
lawyers
resent
CLE
requirements
already.
A
poorly
designed
course
could
do
more
harm
than
good,
leaving
attendees
with
false
confidence.
One
hour
may
not
be
enough.
It
could
become
outdated
and
irrelevant.
It’s
too
costly
to
implement.
But
none
of
these
are
reasons
to
avoid
trying.
Sure,
lawyers
may
not
listen.
But
some
will.
And
multitasking
is
an
issue
with
any
CLE
but
that’s
not
considered
a
reason
to
throw
the
baby
out
with
the
bath
water.
If
nothing
else,
such
a
requirement
would
send
a
strong
message
to
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
that
GenAI
is
here
to
stay,
that
it’s
impacting
the
practice,
and
that
it’s
important
to
be
knowledgeable
about
it
to
represent
clients,
both
now
and
tomorrow.
Yes,
the
course
would
have
to
be
developed
carefully.
But
bar
associations
and
courts
have
tools
in
place
to
evaluate
all
CLE
to
see
if
they
qualify
for
credit.
The
same
criteria
with
a
bit
of
increased
vigilance
would
enable
the
proper
policing.
Change
is
occurring
quickly.
But
that’s
often
the
case
for
CLE
subjects
and
we
still
manage.
And
there
would
be
some
cost.
But
that
cost
pales
in
comparison
to
the
sanctions
and
potential
malpractice
claims
that
would
otherwise
occur.
The
bottom
line
is
that
GenAI
threatens
the
profession
and
those
it
represents
with
a
change
that
could
be
of
a
magnitude
the
likes
of
which
we
have
never
seen.
Its
use
is
increasing.
The
risks
are
real,
as
are
the
benefits.
We
can’t
afford
to
not
require
practitioners
to
be
prepared
and
ready.
We
don’t
need
any
more
headlines
about
sanctioned
lawyers.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.
